User talk:OHMS1H

June 2024
Hello, I'm Me Da Wikipedian. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Age of accountability, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You say there was no "reliable source" cited.
 * Yes, there was: the Bible itself, plus logic.
 * If you want a person, that would be me, Chris Pfaff.
 * BA in Bible-Theology from Toccoa Falls College (1980)
 * MS in Instructional Technology from Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania (1987)
 * And decades of Bible research.
 * I am (also) a reliable source, but I defer to God being more reliable, as He has set forth (and as was consistently cited in my edit) in His Holy Bible.
 * Therefore, please restore the Edit as I submitted.
 * Thank you.
 * -- Chris Pfaff.
 * Also, I founded OHMS which is a Charitable service of services that provides not only Bible & Theological commentary, but that charitably transports medical patients and transplant organs to & from home & hospital. OHMS1H (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read the Wikipedia Original Research Policy. You cannot be a source. AntiDionysius  ( talk ) 13:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As for god/the Bible as a source, the problem is that there exist many profoundly divergent interpretations of the Bible. So you can't just say that your interpretation should be allowed to stand because "it's in the Bible" and your reading is simply "logic" - because other scholars may disagree that the Bible can be read to say what you say it can, or that your logic is sound. See Wikipedia policy:
 * "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."


 * Thanks. AntiDionysius  ( talk ) 13:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reply to my reply to your censorship appears quite biased against the Bible as a primary source, whereas it is, indeed, accepted universally as a primary source, and in particular by colleges and universities, as testified by all "style" reference texts for proper citation of sources.
 * Therefore, to DISclaim the Bible as a source JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK! that there may be a push-back from other interpreters, is an unsound judgment and decision.
 * When the direct quotation from the Bible is set forth and/or a reference is made to a location in the Bible (Book chapter:verse), the reader HAS a source to verify.
 * What? do you "need" a "link" or something "published"?? Is that supposed to be a "reliable source"??
 * Then see , which I published years ago. Reference that if you will. OHMS1H (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you re-read what I wrote, you'll notice I did not say anything about the Bible being unsuitable as a source. It is very frequently used a primary source on Wikipedia; the problem here is not the Bible, it's that you're inserting your interpretation of the Bible. As I explained, and linked|Interpretations of primary source material must come from reliable sources, not from Wikipedia users themselves.
 * On your own reference, we cannot accept that. See WP:SELFPUBLISH - having put your own writing online does not make it a reliable source. See WP:RS for information on what does constitute a reliable source. AntiDionysius  ( talk ) 13:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To correct an error, or to add to something that has, to date, been yet unstated, is a responsibility.
 * You INCORRECTLY state that I am "inserting [my] interpretation of the Bible."
 * What part, EXACTLY, do you question?
 * STATING what the Bible says is NOT an insertion of anyone's "personal interpretation"; it's merely a quote or reference to a quote.
 * In the application of standard rules of grammar and literacy, there is no personalization or opining.
 * Furthermore, logic is neutral, not a "spin" (like politicians); logic is not open to misinterpretation.
 * So what, exactly, do you object to? Quote it back to me. OHMS1H (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't merely quote the Bible, you interpreted it. Several times.
 * ""There is no basis in the Holy Bible for the notion that, if children would die prior to some age, children would (automatically) be "saved".""


 * ""This is not to say that God is not sympathetic, He obviously is. So IF God has instituted some extra-Biblical means by which the young who die are, indeed, eternally saved, such is not supported by Holy Scripture, though such a doctrine is also within the realm of God's characteristic of Mercy.""


 * ""One major factor to consider is the eternal destiny of all aborted children. If children are alive from the point of conception (Psalm 51:5), then each such child (called "fetus") has started under the curse of sin. Such logical conclusions may be unrestful to contemplate, yet such conclusion is sound.""


 * Quotation is saying "the Bible says xyz", and nothing more . When you say "the Bible says xyz, and this means or implies abc" you are doing interpretation. You are plainly making an argument.
 * You know already know this, even if you're now pretending not to, because a minute ago you were quoting your own credentials in Theology. Those credentials wouldn't matter if you were merely quoting; no one needs qualifications to copy and paste from a text. You brought up your credentials because you know that you were making a novel interpretive argument and thought that argument would be given extra weight if you mentioned your academic qualifications and your "decades of Bible research". You also said one of your sources was "logic"; applying logic is of course an act of argument-making, subject to disagreement, and clearly the point where we cross over from quoting into interpretation.
 * Anyone with a Masters in Instructional Technology is capable of understanding the difference between a straightforward quotation, and an argument or interpretation. So I am uninterested in any further rules-lawyering based on pretending not to see that distinction. Go read the Wikipedia rules on interpretation of primary sources and original research. Please do not add any more of your own interpretation or original research; if you do, someone will doubtless remove it. Only add interpretations and research from reliable sources. Read the page on reliable sources if you're curious as to what those are. Thank you. AntiDionysius  ( talk ) 14:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me get back to you more after Church today.
 * Thank you, though, for citing what you believe are the self-infused parts of my edit.
 * Two quick thoughts:
 * 1. My first paragraph is valid because it is the conclusion of logic, stated ahead of its verification statements, and therefore should remain.
 * 2. My last paragraph should logically be better placed in the "Implications" section.
 * Would you rather that I write/rewrite this paragraph in that section?
 * Thank you for this dialog. I do need to pause until this afternoon (U.S. Eastern Time Zone). OHMS1H (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)